Like the Tinder dating app. Each study would then be loaded individually on screen and upon swiping, the next article would present itself. Swiping up or down could mean previous or next, respectively without making a decision.

Allow multiple tags to be selected before the dropdown menu closes

Would be really useful if, when the option 'unsure' was checked, if it would display this decision similarly to the 'include' and 'exclude' then it would be clear to other reviewers that there is uncertainty over this reference rather than there being no decision shown which leads to uncertainty over whether this has been examined or not.

Re-order exclusion reasons. This could be either manual, or dynamically by frequency or recency

Support abstraction

meta analysis tool

It would be quicker to scan through abstracts if you highlight key parts of the abstract like "aims" or "results"...etc.

Better export to csv for easier analysis. As it is right now, filtering is difficult because labels get lumped in with exclusion decisions, and there's lots of cleanup in excel. Just pipe those to different columns and we'd be golden.

Re-use inclusion/exclusion keywords which were defined for a previous review (import/export inclusion/exclusion keywords).

Explanation: I created an extensive set of inclusion/exclusion keywords for screening prediction studies. I would like to re-use them on a different review, without having to type them in again.

Ability to set number of reviewers per article.

automatically search for full texts

When opening the app, let it automatically jump to the last abstract you've reviewed instead of scrolling down

A feature to download a backup file of the running review to local computer, which contain all the decisions made till now and restore it if any thing goes wrong with the main online file. This will give extra piece of mind when reviewing a big list of documents (eg. more than a 1000 articles)

Ex: be able to see all articles that don't contain the words "surgery", "surgeries", "surgeon", "surgeons", "surgical", etc.

It would be very helpful in excluding some articles.

Add Cohens Kappa

Most reviews will have a primary researcher that may review all title/abstract results, with collaborators doing a percentage for inclusion validity/reliability. It is likely there will be some conflict, and there needs to be a 'resolution' or 'override' function available to the primary researcher. These conflicting results still need to be resolved, but at the moment they are automatically excluded.

Link resolver / OpenURL linking

Minimise orange tabs on bottom right!
!

Add comments section with the reviewer name